27planningtoprotect.pdf

Planning

to

Protect

Water

and

Natural

Areas

Worldwide, thereisa

growing

recognitionforthe

need

tobalance developmentwith watershedprotection

and

waterbasin

management.

Any

sustainableeffort

must

recognize theinterdependence of landuse,

spatialdevelopment, natural areas

and

water resources. The

Chesapeake

Bay Program

providesan

example

of comprehensive,integrated

and

innovativewaterbasin

management.

Although not

flawless,itcanserve asa

model

forthedevelopment ofotherregionalwatershedprotection

and

management

programs

intheUnitedStates

and around

theworld.

Erica

Shingara

INTRODUCTION

Overview

of

water and

natural

area

management

Urban

sprawl,

fragmented

natural areas,

and

pollutedair. soil,

and

water challenge urban

and

regionalplannersthroughouttheworld.

Water

and

nature

management

isexceedinglydifficult

because

these resources

have

multiple uses, are

impacted by

numerous

pollutionsources,

and

intersectjurisdictionalboundaries.

The

traditional

environmental planning

approach

tothese

problems

is based

on

the separation

of

urban,

rural,

and

environmental functions

and

tendsto

primarilyfocus

on

theprotection

of

natural

areas.

However,

this isnot a sustainable

method

of planning

because

"islandsof naturewillnot survive in asea ofdestructive practices in

agriculture

and

urban

developmenf

"(Tjallingii.

1996, p. 18). Therefore,planning

must

seekto

achieve a better balance

between ecosystem and

watershed

integrity

and

theprovision

of

human,

social,

and

economic

services. In orderto

accomplish

this,planning

must

recognizethat

problems

with water

and

natural areas(e.g.,

pollution,the

abundance

orshortage

of

water, waterquality, impactsof sprawl

and poor

habitat quality

and

quantity) areinterrelated.

Therefore, in orderto balance the need for grovNthwhile

promoting watershed

protection, water basin

management

must

recognize the interdependence

of

land use.spatial

development,

natural areas

and

waterresources. Forthisreason, aholistic

approach

toplanningis

needed

thatintegrates ecological,spatial.

environmental,

economic and

water

management

principlesintoplanninginorderto

minimize

the adverse impacts

of

development and

land use.

There

are

numerous

strategies fornon-point sourceabatement,mitigation

of

waterquality

impacts,

and

the protectionofnaturalareas (Lundqvist.

Lohm.

and

M.

Falkenmark. 1985):

• _Regiilalury

_approaches

—

nutrient caps, pollution pemiits,crosscompliance,

and

riverbasin organizations.

•

_Econoinic

_{iiisfriinienls}

—

_land

evaluation, taxes, fees,subsidies,cost

recoverv',

economic

incentives,

investmentpolicies,

and

pennittrading.

• _Analytical tools

—

research, predictive modeling, monitoring,

and

project evaluation.

•

Management

_plans

—

that assess the

social,educational,legal,administrative, technical,

and

financial factorstocreate arealisticplanfortheoptimal integrated

manaaement

ofland

and

water

Erica Shingara.

a graduate of

the

University

of North

Carolina's

Department of

City

and

Regional

Planning,

was awarded

the prize for best masters project

of

the class

of

2001.

The

fullproject

compares

the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program

with similar

water

and

natural

area

management

strategies

used

resources(e.g..riverbasin planning

and

tributar\ strategies).

• _Spatial

_ami

_land

_management

techniques

—

critical area programs, transfer

of development

rights

(TDRs)

from

sensitiveareasto areas identified forgrowth,riparian stream buffer restorationprograms,transportation planningtodecrease emissions

and

atmosphericdeposition,land acquisition programs, urban

growth

boundaries,

and

subdivision

and

zoningregulations.

• Best

management

practices

iBMPs)

—

to decrease runoff

from

agriculture(e.g..

nutrientbalance,low-input farming,

economic

incentives, costshare programs,

and

education), urban areas

(e.g.. separated

sewage

and

stonn water collection systems

and

designsthat

decrease

permeable

ser\ices

and

filter

pollutants),

and

constructionareas(e.g.. erosioncontroltechniques).

•

_Education

_and

training

—

to achieve coordination

of

land

and

water

management

and

conservation.

Combinations of

these strategies areutilized

in

programs

throughoutthe

w

orldto

promote

integrated land,water,

and

environmental

consenation

and

management.

Cases

illustratingthecomplexity

of watershed

management

and

theuse

of

innovative

management

strategiesare evidentin

Europe

and

the United States, both

of which

face

growing watershed

management

challenges.

This article

examines

the interstate

watershed

management

framev\ork

of

the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program, which

consists

of

federal,

regional,state,

and

local initiatives.

The

followingsectionprovides an

overview

of

the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program and

identifies

the three

main

common

threats towater

resources

and

natural areas: !) excessnutrients; 2)

poor

habitat quality

and

quantity:

and

3)

development

pressures.Next, the paper

identifiesthethree

main

environmental planning

themes

thatguide planning

and

management

efforts inthe

Chesapeake

Bay: 1)pollution

reduction: 2) naturalareaprotection

and

restoration:

and

3) sustainable development.

For

each

of

these themes,the strategies used to

promote

these

themes

are described and.

when

permissible, the effectivenessofthe strategies is

alsodescribed.

The

finalsection evaluatesthe

Chesapeake

Bay

Program and

identifies

strengths

and weaknesses of

its strategies, as well as the strategies that

may

be transferable to otherv\atersheds in the United States

and

around

theworld.

This

examination

of waterbasin

management

programs implementing

comprehensive

(i.e..

encompassing

various

pollutant sources), integrated(i.e..across jurisdictionalboundaries

and

policyfields),

and

innovative

management

strategiesisimportant

for the future

advancement

in water

management.

The

analysispresented here

does

notpro\idea

comprehensive

blueprint for

watershed

management;

conditionsvary too

much

from watershed

to

watershed

forthis tobe possible,

and

therefore policies

and

programs

must

betailoredtothe specificenvironmental, geographic,hydrologic.economic,

and

political

circumstances of anarea. Thisanalysis only attemptstoprovidean over\ iew

of

available tools

and

a general

framework

foreffective water basin

management.

Overview

of

the

Chesapeake

Bay

The

Chesapeake

Bay

exemplifies a large

scale,innovative,highprofile

program

with

multi-jurisdictional

commitment.

The

Chesapeake

Bay

is located alongthe central eastcoast

of

the United States

and

isthe U.S.'s largest estuary with a

w

atershedthat covers

more

than

64,000

square miles

and

extendsoversix states

—

Mary

land.Virginia.Pennsylvania.

New

York.

West

Virginia,

and Delaware

—

and

the District

of

Columbia.

The

main

body

ofthe

bay

is

roughly

200

mileslong,with anirregular

shorelineapproximately 4.400 milesin length

and

a surface area

exceeding

23.000 square miles

(Moreau.

1997).

Land

use withinthe

approximately

50 major

tributaries:the

main

tributarybasinsincludethe

Susquehanna,

Potomac,

James,

Rappahonnock. and

York

Rivers

(NASDA.

1997). Inaddition,it includes

1.650local

communities

consistingof

approximately 15.1 millionpeople

(CBR

1999).

Inreactionto

emerging

environmental problems, the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program

was

formed

in 1983 to

promote

interstatecooperation

between Maryland.

Pennsylvania.Virginia,

and

the District

of

Columbia.

The

Chesapeake

Bay

Program

has

evolved

intoanationally

renowned

regional

program

that

works

inconjunction

w

ith

federal regulations, the

Chesapeake

Bay

Agreement,

stateprograms,

and

individuallocal

governments.

Threats

to

water

resources

and

natural areas

The

Chesapeake

Bay

faces a

number

of

threats to water resources

and

natural areas that

presentchallengesto spatial,environmental

and

waterplanning.

The

three

main

threats towater resources

and

nature areas are pollution

and

eutrophication.poorhabitatquality

and

quantity,

and

development

pressures.

Excessnutrients

The

excess

of

phosphorus

and

nitrogen

nutrientsareacriticalpollution

problem

forboth the

Chesapeake

Bay

region.

Excess

nutrients contributetoeutrophication.

which

isthe increasein algae growth, followed

by reduced

oxygenation,

lower

water

column

transparency,

and

decreased waterquality that result in

adverse ecological consequences.

Excess

nutrientsoften result

from

the

overtlow of

combined sewage

systems, urbanrunoff, industry. sIuha'

and

silageseepage,

and

runoff

from

agricultural areas.

Studies

of

the

bay

demonstratethat atmospheric deposition

and

diffuseland discharges are the largest sources

of

nutrient pollutantsaffectingwaterquality

(CBP.

1999b: Correll.Jordan,

and

Weller. 1992).

For

example,

in

1996

diffusesources contributed

66

percent

of

the

phosphorus

load

and

57 percent

of

the nitrogen loadtothe bay.

Whereas,

atmospheric depositioncontributestoapproximately 9 percent of

phosphorus

and

21 percent

of

nitrogen

enteringthebay

(CBP.

1999). Importantnonpoint sources include runoff

from

agriculture,

construction sites,

and

urban areas. Therefore, effectivelanduse

and environmental

planning controls arerequired toreducenutrient lossesto

theenvironment.

Poor

habitatquality

and

quantity

Poor

habitat quality

and

quantitypresent another important challengetoplannersinthe

Chesapeake

Bay

basin.

The

Chesapeake

Bay

is

facingthe lossof important

woodlands

and

wetlands

which

function ascriticalhabitat

and

alsopreventpollutants

and sediment from

enteringtributaries

and

reachingthe bay.

Approximately

59 percent

of

the

bay

basin is

forested:

however,

forestsare lost ata rate

of

about 1

00

acres per

day

due

to

suburban

development and

population

growth (Chesapeake

Bay. 1998). In addition, the

Chesapeake

Bay

regionhas

more

than 1.5 millionacres

of

wetlands;

however,

population

growth and

development

pressures threaten these wetlands.

For example, between 1982

and

1989, 5 acres peryear

of

estuarinewetlands

and

3.000acres per yearoffreshwaterwetlands

were

lost. Therefore,

futureprotectionandrestorationofexistingand degraded wetlands andforestsareessential.

Development

pressures

Population

growth

and

development

pressure are significant threats to the

Chesapeake

Bay. Population

growth

triggersthe

demand

for

development which

resultsin the loss

of

wetlands,forests,

and

agricultural lands.

Unmanaged

development

also resultsin

increased impervious surfaces

and runoff

sprawling

development

patterns,

and

inefficient

traffic

pattems

that increase vehicle miles

traveled

and

airpollution

(USGS.

1999).

The

Chesapeake

Bay

region willexperience

significantpopulation

growth

withinthenext

two

decades

and

thereforeofficials

must

conscientiouslyplan for thesustainable

development

ofthe area.

The

Chesapeake

Bay

is experiencingrapid population

growth

that threatens natural areas

and

water resources. For

example,

between

watershed

grew

by 28

percentto 15.1 million

and

isexpectedto

grow

to 18 million b\

2020

(CBP.

1988).This populationincrease is

expectedtospurtheconstruction

of

1.7million

new

homes

in the region,

which

under

current

development

patterns will

consume more

than

636.000

acresofforest

and farmland and

thus significantlyimpacttheba\"snatural resources

(CBP.

1999b). Furthermore, vehicle miles

tra\eled has increased 117 percent

between

1970

and 1997

and

is

expected

tofurther increasewithintensified

development (CBP.

1999b). Therefore,theregion

must

strive to

promote

etficientgrowthpatterns

and

transportations\stemstoreducelandconsumption.

\ehiclemilestraveled,andpollution.

Finally,theloss

of

wetlands, forests,

and

agricultural landstosprawl impactsthe health

of

ecosystems

(USGS.

1999).

Because

each land use

change

generates

numerous

en\ironmental repercussions, thechoices

of development

t\pe.

location,density,constructionmethods, design

and

way

of

conducting day-to-da\ acti\iiies are fundamentalinachievingsustainable

development

(Rogers. 1992).

Although

incrementallandusedecisions, likedraininga smallwetland,

encroaching

on

a stream,

and

clearing a forestappearto

have

limited impacts, the cumulative impact

of

these

changes

can

pose

severeenvironmental

consequences

on

a larger

scale.

Moreover,

sincethe

economy

of

the

Chesapeake

Bay

regionrelies hea\ily

upon

the health

and

vitality oftheenvironment, itis\er\ importanttoplanforsustainable

development

in orderto protect, preserve

and

restore the water resources

and

natural areas.

THE

CHESAPEAKE BAY

PROGRAM

Overview

of the

management program

Between

1950

and

1970.

downward

trends

inwaterquality

and

fisheriesattractednational attention tothe

Chesapeake

Bay. In 1965. the U.S.

Army

Corp

of

Engineers

began

a

comprehensive

study

of

the

bay

that focused

on

navigation,fisheries,flood control,noxious weeds, waterpollution, waterqualit>. beach erosion,

and

recreation

(Moreau.

1999). Subsequently, the

Chesapeake

Bay Program

(CBP) was

authorized in 1975.

Under

the

CBR

the U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agency was

giventhe authority toadministera tlve-year.

$27

millionstudy

of

the

bay

to

examine

waterquality

problems

and

then

recommend

a

management

plan forrestoration.

In 1980.the legislatures

of Maryland.

Pennsylvania.Virginia,

and

the Districtof

Columbia

established the

Chesapeake

Bay

Commission

(CBC)

to

promote

interstate

cooperation.

The

CBC

established the

Chesapeake

Executive

Council

to assess

and

manage

theimplementation

of

coordinatedplans, establishedanimplementation

committee

to

coordinatetechnicalmatters

and

plan

preparation,

and

created a liaison office for

Bay

activities. Responsibilities

of

the

CBC

include: 1)

identityingconcernsrequiringinterstateaction; 2)

recommending

legislative

and

administrative actions

needed

to respond tothose concerns: 3) keepingthe legislaturesproperly

informed

about the region

and

itsresources; 4)representingthe

common

interestofthe statesinactivities

involvingthe federal

government; and

5

)

prov iding a

forum

fortheresolution

of

interstate

conflicts

(Moreau.

1999).

The

first

Chesapeake

Bay Agreement was

signedin 1983.initiatinga regional partnershipto

restorethe bav

(Chesapeake Bav

Implementation

Committee.

1988).

The

major

participants inthe

program

includethestates

of

Mar\

land.Pennsylvania

and

Virginia; the District

of

Columbia;

the

Chesapeake

Bay

Commission

(a tri-stategoverning body);the U.S.

Environmental

Protection

Agencv (EPA)

(representing the federalgovernment);

and

citizenparticipation. Inaddition,a

second

Chesapeake

Bay Agreement was

adopted

in

1987 and

amended

in 1992. This

agreement

establishedanoverallvisionforprotecting

and

restoringthe bay.includingthe

main

goal

of

reducing nitrogen

and

phosphorus

loadings

by 40

percent

by

thevear2000. Finally, inJune

of

2000

the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program

signed the

new Chesapeake 2000 Agreement

to guide restoration effortsthroughoutthe next decade.

county,

and

local

governments

withinthe

Chesapeake

Bay

watershed

have

initiated

effortsto protect the bay.

One

ofthe important

aspects ofthe

program

isthe increasedeffort

by

local

governments and

watershed organizations

toreducepollution,monitor

neighborhood

water

quality,

and

restore habitatto

improve

the bay.

Local

governments

alsoplayavitalrolein addressingthe effectsof land use

and poor

spatial

development

patterns (e.g..

congested

roads, costly public services, thedecline

of open

space, destructive land uses

and

the deterioration

of

thelocal environment). Local

governments

contributetothe success

of

restoration,

and

therefore the

program

continuestofocus

on

their

participation asthe

key

tothe

management

of land usein thewatershed.

Since its

commencement,

the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program

has created

numerous

environmental

and

landuse policies to

encourage

sustainable

development and

bayrestoration. For

example,

in 1995 the

Local Governnieni

Parfiiership luitialive

was

established to coordinatethe restorationeffortsof1.650 local

governments

withinthe

Bay

watershed. Also, in

1996

the

Local

Govenvnent

Participation Action

Plan

and

the Priorities for

Action

for Land.

Growth

and

Stewardship

in the

Chesapeake

Bay

Region were adopted

to address land use

management, growth and

development,

streamcorridor protection,

and

infrastructure

improvements.

These

programs

have

identified three basic

management

themes

that local

governments

can use toprotectthe

bay

(Allen

and

Hall. 1999):

/.

Land management and

stewardsliip

involvesreducing resource

consumption

and

costlysprawl

development

patterns by encouragingthe revitalization

of

existingcommunities,theprotectionof agricultural

and

forested lands,

and

sustainable

development

patternsin ordertoprotectimportantenvironmental areas

and

waterquality.

2.

Stream

corridor protection

and

restoration involvescoordinating

and

supportingeffortsto protect,enhance.

and

restore wetland

and

forest buffers importantfor filteringsediment

and

nutrientsbefore reachingthe bay.

i. Infrastructure

improvements

involve upgrading,maintaining

and

inspecting

sewage

treatmentplantfacilities,

stonnwater

management

infrastructure

and

septic systems.

The

CBP

isconstantly seeking

ways

to

improve

existing

programs and

deal

w

ith

emerging

challenges.

The

CBP

continues to

monitorthe effectiveness

of

policies, research

and develop

new

policies aswellas

improve

existingpolicies,

and

convey

the

program's

goals,

policies,

and

restoration statustothe citizens

of

the region.

Strategies for

water

resource

and

natural

area

protection

The

followingsection highlights several importantstrategies utilized

by

the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program

to

promote

three

main

environmental planning themes: 1)nutrient

reduction; 2) natural areaprotection

and

restoration:

and

3) sustainable

development.

.\ulrientReduction

To

achievethe

40

percentnutrientreduction goal, the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program's

overall strategyistodesign

and implement

a

comprehensive

system

of

controls

and

Best

Management

Practices

(BMPs)

with considerationofthetype

of

pollutants,their

sources,

and

otherenvironmental,physical,

and

socialconditionsthataffectwaterquality'. This broadstrategy balancesregulations with incentive-based

programs and

delegates

implementationtothestatestoallowflexibilityto

tailor

programs

to

meet

state-specific needs

and

conditions.

Under

this

framework,

the

Bay

Program

focuses on reducingnutrients

from

both agriculture

and

urbanareas.

Agriculture

Agriculturecovers

approximately

30

percent

of

the total surface area

of

the

Chesapeake

Bay

the nutrientsentering the ba\.

The

nutrientsare aresuhof excess chemical fertilizers, animal

manure, sewage

sludgeused

on

tlelds.

and

animal wastesthat run offfeedlots

and

pastures.

Some

ofthe

main

strategiesused toreduce nutrients

from

agriculturesources includethe

promotion

ofsustainablefanningpractices, nutrient

management

programs,incentive programs,

and

tributary strategies.

Sustainable

farming

practices:

There

are various

programs promoting

best

management

practices

(BMPs)

and

best

management

systems

(BMSs)

to resolve waterquality

problems

inthe

bay watershed

and

promote

sustainable agriculture.

BMPs

are a

wide

variety of techniques designedto

more

eftlcientK

and

effectively practiceagriculture

and

toreduce runoff

(NASDA.

1997). For

example.

BMPs

includevegetatedbufferstrips,conservation tillage,

streambank

fencing,stripcropping, alternativelivestockwatering systems,

and

animalwastehandling, storage, transportation,

and

useasfertilizer. Additionally,resource

specialistsadvocatethe

combination

of

various

BMPs

and

nutrient

management

plansfora best

management

systems

approach

to

more

effectivelyreducenutrients

and improve

production.

For

example,this

may

include

combining

conservationtillagepracticeswith grasswaterways,strip-cropping,diversions,stream

sidebuffersandanutrient

management

plan.

E.xamples

of

state

programs

promoting

sustainable agriculture areseen in

Maryland

and

Virginia.

Mar\

landencouragestheadoption

and

implementation

of

BMPs

by

offering arange

of

financial

and

technical resourcesto fanners throughthe

Maryland

Agricultural

Water

Quality Cost-Share

Program

(MACS)

(NASDA.

1997).

MACS

provides fanners with education

and up

to 87.5 percent

of

thecostto install arange

of

eligible

BMPs

toprotectwaterquality, suchas

animalwastestoragefacilities,gradestabilization structures

and

grassed

waterways.

In addition, there are

more

than

850,000

acres

managed

under

certifiednutrient

management

plans

and

more

than

400

individualscertifiedtoprovide

management

services to fanners.

Virginia's AgriculturalStewardship

Act

(ASA)

created a

program

in

which

the

Department

ofAgricultural

and

Consumer

Ser\ices

(DACS)

works

with fanners

and

'ocal Soil

and Water

Conservation Districts

(SWCDs)

toresolvewaterquality

problems caused by

sediment,nutrients,

and

pesticides

from

agriculturaloperations

(NASDA.

1997).

Under

theprogram, the

DAC

receivescomplaints alleging specific agriculturalactivitiesarecausing waterpollution

and

theninvestigates

and

overseesmitigation.

The

program

provides a

wide

variety

of

means

and

BMPs

forfarmers to

correctwaterquality

problems

before

enforcement

action is

deemed

necessary. For

example,

afarmer

must

create a planwith "stewardship

measures" and

an implementation scheduletoprevent waterpollution.

The

plan

must

include a tract

map.

affected water feature designation,soil

maps,

and

astatement

of

pollutionproblems. This

program

allowsthe opportunity forcitizensto identify waterquality problemsandthenprovidestechnical, financial,and

legalsupporttofannerstoresolve theproblems.

Nutrient

Management

Programs:

Because

ofthehigh levels

of

nutrients

from

agricultural lands.

CBP

and

states

have

placedsignificant

emphasis on

nutrient

management

programs.

The

purpose ofnutrient

management

programs

is

tobalancenutrientinputs

and

outputs

by

determiningthe

amount

of

fertilizerrequired based

on

factorssuch assoilcondition,crop

rotation,

and

BMPs

in use. This

maximizes

the

benefitsoffertilizers

and

minimizes

theimpacts

on

waterquality.

With

a goal

of

placing3 million acresof farmland

under

nutrient

management

programs

by 2000.the

CBP's

nutrient

management

strategy has

been

regarded as

one

of

the

most

successful in thenation

(CBP.

1997).

Different states within the

Chesapeake

Bay

region

have developed

their

own

nutrient

management

programs.

For

example.

Pennsylvaniacreated the Nutrient

Management

Law

in 1

993

tostrengthen

manure management

standards in ordertoreduce loads

from

livestock. Also, in 1998

Maryland

passedthe

Water

Quality

Improvement

Act,

which

is

regardedas the

most comprehensive

nutrient

1997).

The

Act

requires

landowners

with nutrient application greaterthan 10 acres,farm operations grossing

$2,500

or

more

annually,or livestockoperations with

more

thaneightanimal

units' toprepare nutrient

management

plans.

Maryland

providesfinancialassistance,technical assistance

and

software

packages

to aid fanners

(MD

Department of

Agriculture, undated). In

addition.Virginia offersstate tax credits as incentivesto farmersto

develop

nutrient

management

plans

and

topurchasenutrient application

equipment (CBP. October

1997).

The

number

of

acres

under

nutrient

management

plans isan indicator

of

the progress ofnutrient

management

programs. Figure 1

illustratesthatsince

program

inception in 1986.

more

than 3 millionacresare projectedtobe undernutrient

management

by

2000.

Incentive

Programs:

Sustainable agriculture practices

and

nutrient

management

programs

often present high upfront coststo

fanners. Therefore, there are

numerous

incentive-basedstrategies, in particular

cost-share

programs

for agricultural

BMPs,

to

encourage

farmers to

implement

better agricultural practices.

Funding

forcost-share

programs

comes

from

federal agenciesas well

asstate appropriations. State

and

federal

cost-share

programs

assistfarmers withthe costs of

installationasanincentivefor participation, usually

inratiosrangingfrom80:20. 75:25. orin

some

cases such asPennsylvania's streambank fencing program, 100percent

(CBP.

October 1997). Figure 2 illustratesthecostshareratiosand funding allocationsfor statecost shareprograms.

Trihiitary Strategies:

Many

strategies

were

too general to effectively

meet

the

40

percent reduction goals. Therefore, in

1992

the

Chesapeake

Executive

Council

created the

framework

fortributary strategies inorderto address the

need

fora

more

area

and

source specific approach. Tributary strategies are basin-specific nutrientreduction plansdesigned foreach ofthe ten

major

tributaries inthe bay.

They

aredesigned totakeintoaccount the watershed's unique physiographicfeatures(e.g.. hydrology,soil,

and

landuse), politicalclimate

and

institutional structures.

The

strategies

were

specificallycreatedtodeal withthe variation in loadingsbyjurisdiction.

and

they alloweach jurisdictiontoestablishtailored,

comprehensive

nutrientreduction strategies thatbalance regulatorycontrolswith incentive-based programs. Tributary strategies address three primaryareasfornutrientreduction: 1)wastewater

treatment plants upgradestoincorporate the

BNR

3,500,000

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

1986

1992

1994

1997

2000

State

Cost-Share

Ratio

State

Funding

Maryland

-

50-87%

cost-share ratio

-

$10,000

cap/practice

-

_$50,000

cap/practice for animal

waste

storage

-

$29.9million(1983-95)

Pennsylvania

-

80%

cost-share ratio

-

$30,000

cap

-

$3million/year

Virginia

-

75%

cost-share ratio

-

_(cap

_unknown)

-

$1 million/year

Figure2: Cost-Share

Program

Allocations(Source: CBP. October 199 b).

process:2) agricultural

BMPs:

and

3)urban stonn water

BMPs

(CBP.

1994).

Another key

component

of

alltributary strategies ispublic

involvement

to increaselocal

commitment

tothe bay's restoration. In

particular, thereis

emphasis

on consensus

building

among

major

stakeholders,suchas farmers

and

the larger agricultural

community,

as a

way

toincrease

ownership of

theplan

among

constituencies

and encourage

participationduring implementation stages.

However,

lack

of

authority

and

resources

and

unclearroles

and

missions present

some

weaknesses of

this

approach (CBP. October

1997). Nevertheless,

the statescontinueto support this

framework

withthe beliefthat localsupport, locally tailored

strategies,andcollaborationwillsignificantly

enhance

the long-term effectiveness

and

sustainability

of

watershed

based

nutrient reductions

(CBP, October

1997).

Another

important aspect

of

the tributary strategies

program

istheintroductionofnutrient trading inorderto address differences inthe cost-effectiveness

of

nutrientreduction strategies

among

varioustributaries.

Because

some

tributaries, likethe

Susquehanna

Tributar}'

Strategy,fall shortof

meeting

therequired

40

percentnutrientreductions, nutrienttrading

was

introducedto

compensate

forthisshortfall

by

recognizingtheincreasedreductionsin other

tributaries

(CBP.

October

1994). Therefore,a

1

992

Agreement

allows for reallocations

of

the

40

percent goaltoother tributariesoutside

of

the

Susquehanna

basin

(CBP.

1994). All statesare consideringeffluenttrading

programs

but

have

not yetformallyinstitutionalizedthenecessary

framework.

Lrban

water

Nutrients

from

urbanareas originate

from

municipal

wastewater

treatment plants,

sewer

overflows

and

runoff

from

urban areas (e.g..

lawns,

roadwavs.

and

other

developed

areas)

(NASDA.

1997).

Urban

best

management

practices

and wastewater

treatment plant upgrades are strategies used to decrease nutrients

from

urban areas.

Urban

best

management

practices includeerosion

and

sedimentcontrolson areas

under development

and stormwater

controls in

developed

areas.

These

practicesareapplied

by

industrial,

commercial,

and

residentialfacilitiesto

manage

stormwater management, and

septic

system

maintenance.

Wastewater

treatmentplant

upgrades

are another primar\ control strategytoreduce

nutrients.For example. BiologicalNutrient

Removal

(BNR)

technology,an

advanced

nutrient

removal

system, has

been

installed in43

major wastewater

treatment plants in the

Chesapeake

Bay

basin. Currently.

48

percent

of

the flow is treated

by

BNR

and 64

percent

of

theflow will betreatedusing

BNR

afterthe full impleinentation

of

TributaryStrategies. Thiswill

leadtoaconsiderable decrease in nutrient loads

from

municipal

wastewater

treatment plants.

Effectivenessofnutrientreductionstrategies

In 1997. the

CBP

completed

a

comprehensive

waterquality

assessment

to

evaluateprogress

toward

the

40

percent

reductiongoal. Figure3 illustratesthereductions innitrogen

and

phosphorus

between

1985

and

2000.

Phosphorus

loadsdeclined

by

6 million

Ibs./yr

between

1985

and 1998

(mostly

due

toa

ban

on

phosphates indetergents)

and

the

40

percent reduction goal

was

satisfied.

However,

nitrogen loadsdeclined

by 42

millionIbs./yr

and

the

40

percent reduction goal

was

fwtsatisfied.

Therefore greater

emphasis

must

be placed

on

reducingnitrogen loads.

Natural area

protection

and

restoration

The

Chesapeake

Bay

relies

on

coordinated public

and

private actionstoprotect forests

and

wetlands in the bay"s watershed. Strategies

used to protect

and

restore natural areas are the Riparian Forest BufferInitiative, preservation programs,

and

the

Wetlands

Initiative.

Riparian Forest Buffers Initiative

Protectingriparian forestbuffersthrough

acquisition,easements,and

development

regulationsisimportant forwater resourceand natural areaprotection. Nearly 50percentofthe bay'sriparian- forestshave been converted to

other landuses ordegraded. Itisimportantto

protect andrestore riparian forest buffersbecause theyfilterpollutantssuchasnutrients,sediment, andpesticidesinsurfaceand groundwater, and reduce

downstream

impacts forfloods

(CBP.

March

1999). Nutrientand sedimentreductionsof 30 to

90

percentcan occur

when

runoft'and

groundwater

passthrough riparian forest buffers.

Inaddition,riparianbuffersarerecognizedasan effectivecontrol

measure

tomaintainstreambank stability,

enhance

andrestorestreamhabitat,

providecorridorsfor wildlife,and providecooler watertemperatures,leaflitter,

and

coverfor

aquatic species.

With

over 111,000miles

of

perennial

and

intermittent streams in the

Chesapeake

Bay

watershed, protecting riparian forestbuffers is a

challenge. In 1996. a Riparian Forest Buffers

Initiative

was

adoptedtoincrease riparian

buffers'

on

2,010 miles

of

stream

and

shoreline

in the

watershed

by theyear

2010

(CBP,

1999a).

Inordertoreachthis goal.

Maryland and

Pennsylvaniawillrestore

600

miles.Virginiawill

restore

610

miles,

and

D.C.

and

federal lands

Phosphorus

1985 1997 2000Goal 2000

Actual

willrestore

200

miles

of

riparian forest buffers.

As

partofthis initiative, the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program and

signatory jurisdictionsre\iseor adoptlocalzoning

and

subdivision ordinances,

comprehensive

landuseplans,

and

regionalor watershed

stonnwater

management

plans to

restore riparian buffers. Additionalrestoration

effortsinvolvesmallgrantprograms,

federal-statepartnershipssupportingConservation

Reserve

Enhancement

Programs,

cost-share programs.ta,\ breaks,easements,

and

acquisition.

The

results

of

restoration effortsare promising.

Between

1996

and

2000.

appro.ximately711 milesofriparianforestbuffers

were

restored,

which

is35 percent

of

the

2010

restoration goal.

Preservation

programs

The

Chesapeake

Bay Program

seeks to

permanently

preservecriticalenvironmental areas

and

relies

on

public-privatepartnershipsto

achievethisgoal.

The 2000

Chesapeake Bav

Agreement

guidesthe next

decade of

restoration

in the

Chesapeake

Bay

watershed. This

new

agreement

has

committed

members

to

"...permanently preserve

from development 20

percent ofthe landarea inthe

watershed by

2010" (CBP.

December

2000). This goal translatesinto

permanently

preserving 7.783.856 acres

from development.

The

CBP

plans to

permanentK'

protectthislandthroughperpetual conservation or

open

space

easement

or fee ownership, held

by

a federal, state,or local

government

or non-profit organization.

It isestimated that6.688.757 acresare currentlypreserved

by

allsignatory jurisdictions.

Of

thistotal

amount,

approximately2.116.305

acres are

owned

by

the federal

government.

4.209.227 acres are

owned

oreased b\ the state

governments.

282.29

1 acresare

owned

by

the

local

government, and

80.934 acresare

owned

or

easedbv'nonprofit or otherprivate sources. Subtracting

from

theacres

of

landalready preserved, there areanadditional 1.095.099

acres remainingtopreserve inorder to

meet

the

20

10goal.

The

Wetlands Initiative

Nearly 1.5million acres

of

wetlands

occupy

the

Chesapeake

Bay

watershed, but increasing population

and

development

pressuresare degrading

and

destroying bothtidal

and

nontidal wetlandsin all ofthe

Chesapeake

Bay

states

(CBP. undated

a).

The Chesapeake Bay

Program

has recognizedthe importantrole that wetlands playinthe overall health

of

the

bay

and

itslivingresources

and

has

committed

itselfto

protecting

and

restoringwetlands. In 1988.the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program developed

the

Wetlands

Policy

Implementation

Plan

which

established a

"no

net loss"goal forthe watershed.

The

plancalled forfosteringthe protection

of

wetlands through fourstrategies: 1)

theinventory

and

mapping

of

wetlands; 2) the protection

of

existingwetlands:3) the

rehabilitation

and

restoration

ofdegraded

wetlands:

and

4)education

and

research. In

addition,in 1

997

the

CBP

developed

strategiesto

identify

and

trackwetlands inthe

Chesapeake

Ba\ watershed

toachieve a netgain in wetlands acreage

and

to assist local

governments and

watershed groups

in

wetland

management.

Mar\

land.Virginia,

and

Pennsylvania

have

tidal

and

nontidalwetlands

programs

tohelp

develop

policies

and

regulations

toward

wetland protection. In addition,the states

have

taken stepstoprotectwetlands

beyond

theregulatory programs. For example, in

1996

Maryland

established a60.000-acrewetlandsnet-gain goal,

and

Pennsylvania hasstrictermitigation

requirements

under

theirregulatory wetlands program. In orderto assist the stateswith wetlandsprotection, the

1997

Chesapeake

E.xecutiveCouncil adopted anadditional

wetlands policy designedtospeedthe restoration

and

protection

of

wetlands in the

Chesapeake

Bay

basin.

Under

Directive 97-2.

Wetlands

Protection

and

RestorationGoals,the

CBP

focusesefforts forachievingno-net-loss

of

wetlands

and

to

move

toward

a netgain in the

Chesapeake

Bay

watershed.

Under

Directive 97-2, the

CBP

and

itspartners are

committed

to

complete

and

publishwetlandsstatus-and-trends reportseverv five vears.to

develop

state

preservation

and

restoration,

and

to

develop

qiiantitlabiewetland restoration goals. Despite

these efforts to protect

and

restorewetlands,

however,

wetland lossstillcontinues.

Effectivenessofnaturalarea protection

and

restoration

With

more

than

90.000

acres(150 square

miles) of

open

land

consumed

annually

by

growth

in the

Chesapeake

Bay

States, the protection

and

restoration

of

natural areasis

increasingly importantaswellas challenging. Public andprivateinstitutions

have

unitedto

protect

and

restore riparian forest buffers, preserxe important environmental areas,

and

stop wetland degradation.

The

resultsofcurrent efforts arepromising,butcontinuedfuture supportisrequired. In orderto

meet

itsgoals, the

program

must

restore 1.299 acres

of

riparian

forests,preserve over 1 million

more

acres of

land,

and

continuetostriveforanetgain in wetlands. Thiswillrequire significant

cooperation

and

commitment

from

national, state,

and

local

governments and

nonprofits.

Sustainable

Development

To

promote

sustainable

development,

the

Chesapeake

Bay

primarilyrelieson voluntary

county and

local

governmental

actions, like

development

management

tools, tocontrol land-useplanning,water

and sewer

planning,

construction,

and

other growth-related

management

processes (Allen

and

Hall. 1999).

Bay

restoration

and

protection

programs

concentrate

on

coordinatinglocal initiatives

involvinglanduse

management,

streamcorridor protection,

and

infrastructure

improvements.

The

follow ing highlights

some

oftheimportant

development and

land use

management

strategiesutilized

by

state,county,

and

local

governments

within the

Chesapeake

Bay

watershed. Tools described

and

assessed includecriticalarearegulations,urban

growth

boundaries, infill/communityredevelopment, transferof

development

rights,subdivision requirements

and

clusterzoning, andpotential fundingstrategies forwater resource

and

natural area protection.

State criticalarea regulations

Both

Virginiaand

Maryland

utilize critical

area regulationstoprotectimportant lands adjacentto the bay. Criticalareas are t\pically identified

on

a state

and

regional basisbecause naturalareascrosspoliticaljurisdictions

and

therefore require thecooperation of multiple jurisdictions. Criticalarea regulationsprovide

multi-jurisdictional

commitment

and

longrange planningfor significant natural resources.

Programs

require abroad range ofskills

and

resourcesforplanning, legal justification,

and

financing,inadditiontoincorporating various

development

management

toolstobalance

development and

conservation.

For

example.

IVIar\'landadoptedthe

Chesapeake

Bay

Critical

Area

Protection

Law

in

1984.declaringthatthestate hasacritical

and

substantial interestinfostering

more

sensitive

development

activity

along

the

Chesapeake

Bay

shorelineinorderto

minimize

damage

towater quality

and

naturalhabitats

(Malone.

1990;

Godschalk.

1987).

The

Act

definesthecritical

area as "lands beneaththe

Bay

and

all uplands within 1,000feetoftidal

water

ortidal wetlands"

and

classifiesexisting

development

withinthe

criticalareas as:

1. intensely

developed

areas

—

existing

developed

areas

where

new

growth

should occur

and improvements

towater

quality

and

water conservationare stressed:

2. limited

developed

areas

—

development

is

allowed

as longasit does not

change

the establisheddensity

and

pre\ailing land use

and

it

must

improve

water

quality

and

conserveexisting natural habitat;and

3. resource

conservation

areas

—

development cannot

e.xceedanoverall densityofone

development

unit(du)/acre.

Inaddition, local

governments

arerequiredto

developlocal zoning

and development

plansthat

include limiting

commercial

and

industrial

protectingshoreerosion,

and

describing landscaping requirements.

Man,

land's Critical

Area

Protection

Law

has been consideredtobe

one of

the

most

e\tensi\e

and

inno\ ati\e coastal area protection

programs

inthecountn,; however, thereare

some

criticismsofthe regulation.

For

example,

some

criticizethatthestandard,

uniform

specifications areover-simplistic in thatthey disregardthe differences

between

shore locations

and

failto

recognizethe potential use

of

performance

standardstomitigateenvironmental impacts. In

addition,therestrictionslimitingresidential

development on

landabuttingtheba\ has

affected

housing

prices. Critical arearestrictions

increase

housing

pricesbecause they limitthe suppl\ oflanda\ailablefor

housing

construction

and

increase the \alueofthe shoreline

development

asan amenity,

which

iscapitalized

intothe\alueof land

and housing

prices (Parsons. 1992).

A

study

of housing

price increases resulting

from

Mar}

land'scriticalarea

restrictionsestimatedthat

housing

prices for

areas with water frontage increased

between 46

and

62 percent, prices for

housing

w

ithout frontage increased

between

14

and

27

percent,

and

prices forhousing nearbut not inthecritical

area increased

between

13

and

21 percent (Parsons. 1992).

Urban

growth boundaries

An

urban

growth boundary

isaplanningtool

thatguidesfuture

development by

delineatingan arbitraryline

around

a geo-politicalregionin ordertodistinguishareasappropriate forurban expansion

from

areasappropriatefor agriculture,

rural,

and

resourceprotection(Frankel,2000).

The

boLmdar\

shouldalsocoordinate witha

strategy that pro\ ides the necessar} urban

servicestoensureefficient

and

timeK

development.

Urban

growth

boundariesnotonly servethelocal

community

by encouraging

more

cost-efficientde\elopment. thev alsocan

improve

the health

of

the

bay

b\

promoting

compact

urban

development and

preserving importantnaturalareas

from

development (CBP.

1997a). For

example,

urban

growth

boundaries

can limitthe

number

of

vehicle milestraveled,

protectimportantenvironmentalareas,

and

reduceimpervious surfaces.

An

example of

a

communit}

usingurban

growth

boundariesas ade\

elopment

management

tool

w

ithinthe

Chesapeake

Bay

watershed isthe Isle

of

Wight

Count}.

VA. The

Isle

of Wight

County

created

Development

Ser\ice Districtsthatcoincide

w

ith

major

transportation corridors

and

future

sewer

serv ice

expansion plans inordertoprotectimportant

rural lands

from

development (CBP,

1997a).

Withinthedistricts,the

county

assumes

the

responsibilit}

of

providinginfrastructure,

therefore decreasing

development

costs

and

encouraging

de\

elopment

w

ithinthedistricts. In

addition,the count}-revisedlanduse

management

ordinancestoestablish

performance

standardsforlandscaping,control

of

access,lotcoverage,

and

buffering inorderto better

manage

development and

protect sensitive environmental

and

agricultural areas.

Infill/communityredevelopment

Promoting

infillde\

elopment

allowsa

communit}

torevitalize existingurbanareas.

pro\ideadequate

and

affordablehousing,utilize

existing infrastructure

and

reducethe

consumption of

rural

and

environmentally

sensitivelands. Infill

development

benefitsthe region

by

reducingthe

number

of

vehiclemiles traveled, reducingthe

need

forseptic systems in

rural areas

which

contributetoexcess nutrients

withinthe ba}.

and encouraging

theclean

up of

contaminated sites for futureuse

which

reduce the

amount

oftoxicpollutantsenteringthe bay.

An

example of

a

communit}

w

ithinthe

Chesapeake

Bay

thatactively

promotes

infill

development

is Lititz

Borough.

PA

(CBP.

1997a).

Lititz

Borough

islocatedin Lancaster

County

and

haspoliciestosustainavibrant

downtown

center, preservethe

town's

historicdistrict,

and

preserv erural lands. Inorderto

promote

infill

development

in

downtown.

Lititz

Borough

hasa

seven-}ear tax

abatement program

for

commercial and

industrialbusinessesthatlocate withinthe

downtown.

Inaddition, the

town

also

utilizesan urban

growth boundan*

to

promote

growth

in designatedareas

and

todiscourage sprawIoutside

of

thetown'slimits. Lititz

coordinatesdifferent

development

management

techniquesto

encourage economic development,

compact

urban form,

and

environmental

sustainabilitN.

The

utilizationofdifferent

development

management

techniquesto

promote

infill

and

preventpollutioncontributedto Lititz

Borough's

designationasa

Gold

Chesapeake

Bay

Partner

Community

for effortsto protect its land, rivers,

and

the bay.

Transferof developmentrights

(TDR)

The

Transfer

of

Development

Rights

(TDR)

isa tool that allows forthe transfer

of

development

rights

of one

parcel in

exchange

for the right to

develop

anotherparcel

more

intensely(Smith, 2000).

TDR

serves as a market-driven, incentive-based

development

management

tool thatprovides

compensation

to

a

landowner

withoutthe

need

forexpensive public acquisition

(CBR

1997a). Benefitstothe bay include

pemianently

preserving

environmentallysensitiveareas, forests,

and

agricultural lands thatserveas natural pollution buffers

and

filtration areas forwaterquality. In

addition,it

minimizes

the

number

of

septic

systems,

amount

of

impervioussurface,

and

the

number

of

vehiclemilestraveled.

Montgomer\'

County,

MD

maintainsa careful land

management

program

with

more

acres preserved

under

legal protection than

any

otherurban

county

inthe nation. In 1997. over

93,000

acres, nearlyone-third

of

thecounty,

was

preserved underlegalprotection (Allen

and

Hall,

1999).

The County

designated

90,000

acres within thesendingareas,

and

has

downzoned

the area

from

1 du/ 5 acresto 1 du/ 25 acres

and

has

allowed one

creditper fiveacresto sending area

owners

(Smith, 2000). In addition, the county has designated receiving areas

where

public facilities

and

public servicescan support higherdensity

development.

The

program

has beenrelativelysuccessful;approximately 6,629

development

rights

from

over

400

properties have

been

severed

by easements

for a land area of

43,993

acres.

Of

these,only 5,123

have been

transferredto receivingzones.

The

success

of

Montgomery

County's

program

isattributedtoa land

market

that

promotes

TDR

sales

from

the sending areastothe receivingareas,the

appropriatedetermination

of

thevalue

of

TDR's

tobuyers

and

sellers,

and

a clear

program

that

has

been

properly

marketed

tolandowners, developers, realtors,bankers

and

attorneys

(CBP,

1997a).

However, one

drawback

of

the

TDR

program

isthat

from

a regional

prospective,

Montgomery County

cannot prevent

development from

areasoutside itsborders.

Subdivisionrequirements

and

zoning

Subdivisionregulationscan play an important role inthe protection of importantnaturalareas.

For

example,

cluster

zoning

allowsforthe protection

of

rural character

and minimizes

the impacts

on

resource lands

by

focusing

growth

into smaller areasofa parcel

and

preservingthe

remainder

as

open

space or farmland.

Clustering

can

improve

storm water

management

by

allowing

stormwater

to be

channeled

and

detained indetention

ponds

locatedwithinthe

open

space. In addition,specified vegetated bufferrequirementswithinsubdivision

regulations areimportanttofiltersediments

and

pollutants,reduce Hooding,

and

protectwater qualitywithinthewatershed.

Howard

County,

MD,

located

between

Washington

D.C. and Baltimore

MD,

has

adopted

subdivisioncontrols

and

clusterzoningto

mitigate the effectsofrapid

growth

thatthreaten

rural areas. For example,

Howard

County's

Subdivision

and

Land

Development

Regulations requirewetlandstobe placed in

open

space

when

it is created, a buffer

of

25 feet

around

nontidal wetlands, abuffer

of

75 feetalong perennial streamsinresidentialzoningdistricts,

and

a buffer

of 50

feetalong intemiittent streams

and along

perennialstreamsin nonresidential

zoning

districts

(Howard

County, 1999).

Furthermore, becausethe county'sthree acre lot

minimum

was

notadequatetohandle

growth

pressure, in

1992

the

county

adopted

threerural

clusterdistrictswithspecificguidelinestoaid developersinsubdivisiondesign

(CBP,

1996):

/.

Rural Conservation

(RC)

allocates

priority toagricultural uses

and

permits residential useata density

of

1 dwelling

acres:

2.

Rural

Residential

(RR)

applies to areas

where

the

most

extensive subdi\ision

hasalread} taken place

and

is intended to

accommodate

most of

the

demand

for ruralresidential

development

as infill:

and

3. Density-

Exchange

Option

(DEO)

is an

overlaydistrictthatcoversall lands withinthe

RC

and

RR

districts. Density

may

be

exchanged between

qualified sending

and

receivingareas.

The

intent

istogivefanners considerableflexibility

intransferring density

away

from

the best

farms

tothose locations that

have

theleast long-term\iabilits for

agriculture.

Howard

County's

subdivisionregulations

and

cluster

zoning

has

been

relatively successful,

and

therehas

been

a strong

demand

forclustered lot

subdivisions. Inaddition,an assessment

of

Howard

County's General

Plan cites rural

clustering

and

density

exchange

as de\ icesto

help achieve itsgoal

of 30,000

acres

under

protection

from

future

development

(Howard

County, 1999).

However,

thecounty did not achieve greateruse of shared septic systems to

create tighterrural clusters because costs

and

the agencN approval processdiscouraged implementation.

Potential

funding

strategiesforprotecting water resources

and

natural areas

There

are \ariousfunding strategies used in

the

Chesapeake

Bay

region to support sustainable

development.

First,a special assessmentdistrict can be used toprotector

improve

a special geographic feature.

A

special assessmentdistrict isan independent

government

entitv'

formed

to finance

governmental

services for a specific geographic area, such as a stream, small watersheddistrict,ornaturalresource

management

district. Residents

of

the special

districtpay taxestofinance specific

improvements

that willbenefit

them

orresolve a

community

problem,likeexcessiverunoffinthe

district. For

example,

residents interestedin

reclaiming a

wetland

or

improving

a

waterway

can use a special assessmentdistrict to

manage

and

financethe project.

Second, a

stormwater

management

utilityis

an enterprisethat can charge

landowners

a fee based

on

parcel size

and

the degree

of

development.

The

revenue

from

this feecan be dedicated to

stormwater

management

activities,

suchasretrofittingexistingsystems or providing

sediment

and

erosioncontrol. Third,wetland or

forest

banking

canbe usedto replace a

wetland

orforestdestroyed

by development.

Mitigation

banks

facilitatetheadministration

of

asystem

where

appropriate areas for wetlands or forests are

matched

with developers in

need of

satisfyingoff-sitemitigationrequirements. Fourth, local

governments

can utilizeaState

Revolving

Fund

where

thestateprovides funds to financeboth public

and

privatesector projects

that

enhance

orprotect waterquality. Projects

may

include septic

system

repairorreplacement, erosion control,upgrading

wastewater

treatment facilities,orthe construction

of

animal waste storagefacilities. Finally,an

endowment

fund

from

a publicor privateorganizationcan beused for a variety

of

projects, such aswetlands

and

habitatcreation/restoration,treeplanting

and

streambank

stabilization.

Effectiveness

of

developmentstrategies

The

effects of

development

management

are

diftlculttodetermineempirically;however,

recent

modeling

effortsindicatethe potential effects

of

different

development

scenarios.

An

analysis presented in Integrating Build-Out Analysis

and

Water

Quality

Modeling

to

Predict the

Environmental Impacts of

Alternative

Development

Scenarios (1998)

indicatesthe potentialresults

from

different buildoutswithinMaryland's Patuxent River watershed.

The Mary

landOffice

of

Planning

(MDOP)

modeled

land

and

water resource

impacts

of

three different

development

alternatives

(CBR

March

1998):

/.

2010

Base

Zoning

("worst case

subdivisionand environmental ordinances

and

without

BMPs

for nutrient

management;

2.

2010

Current

Programs,

portraying

new

development under

currentzoning, subdivision,and environmental

regulations, as wellasimplementation

of

agriculturalnonpoint sourcepollution

control;

and

3.

2010

Directed

Growth,

portraying

enhanced

levels

of

growth

management,

landconservation,andpollutioncontrol practicesincludedin

Mary

land's Tributary Strategies, such as forest conservation,streambuffer protection,

ruralclustering,increased

development

potential in

growth

areas,transfer

of

development

rights,extending

sewer

servicein designated

growth

areas, protective agriculturalzoning,

and

the purchase

of

development

rights.

The

results

of modeling

the three scenarios

suggestthatimplementation

of

both

growth

management

and

pollution control optionsare essentialinmaintainingnutrient loadcaps

beyond

theyear2000. Intheyear

20

10.

modeling

resultssuggestthatpollutionlevels will be

much

lowerif

growth and

new

development

iswell directed. Inaddition,

growth

management

appliedinconjunction withother

management

tools,suchas

BMPs,

will be

one

ofthe

most

importantfactorsdeterminingfuture pollution

levels. For

example.

MDOP

estimatesthatin

theyear2010.nitrogen pollutant loads to the Patuxent River watershed could be about

1.141.000

pounds

lowerif "Directed

Growth."

"Resource

Protection,"

and

BMP

options

were

used to

manage

growth. In addition, by theyear 2010, streamquality

would

degradein nearly half

of

the Patuxent watershed under the

Current

Programs,

while underthe Directed

Growth

scenariostreamquality

would

limitdegradation

toabout

one

quarterofthe watershed.

The

modeling

resultssuggesttheimportancefor

state, county,

and

local

governments

tocontinue

topursuesustainable

development

strategies.

EVALUATION OF

THE CHESAPEAKE

BAY

PROGRAM

The

water resource

and

natural area

management

approach

of

the

Chesapeake

Bay

exemplifiesa

comprehensive,

integrated,

and

innovative

management

program

that can serve asa

model

forthe

development of

future programs.

The

followingsectionevaluatesthe

program

to protect water resources

and

natural areas. It identifiesthe strengths

and

weaknesses

of

the

Chesapeake

Bay Program

and

some

of

the strategiesthatcan be applied

more

broadly in

thiscountry

and

abroad.

Although

millions

of

dollarshave been spent

on bay

restoration

programs

since the

Program

originatedin 1983.

measuring

the effectiveness

of any

program

isdifficultbecause

of

the indistinctlink

between programs and

improvements

towaterquality

and

naturalareas.

However,

a general assessment ofthe strategies utilized

by

the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program

demonstrates a

number

of

significant strengths. Overall, the

Chesapeake

Bay

Program

displays

good

interstate

and

intrastatecooperationand

community

involvement.

The

program

goesto

great lengthsto

promote

community

outreach

and

provides

many

opportunitiesforcitizen

involvement. Inaddition, the

program

is

improving

itsmonitoring systems

and

includesan integrated goals

and

indicatorssystemthat

clearlyillustratesthestatus

of

restoration efforts.

The

Chesapeake

Bay

Program

has also createdinnovativenutrientreduction strategies.

For instance.Tributaries Strategies are a flexible

and

area-specific

approach

to nutrientreduction.

In addition, the

Chesapeake

Bay

has

advanced

cost-share

programs

that

encourage

farmersto

implement

BMPs.

In addition,

governments and

non-profitswithinthe

Bay

have

successfully collaboratedtoprotectmillionsofacresof naturalareas

and hundreds of

miles

of

riparian

forest buffers. Furthemiore. the

Chesapeake

Bay Program

isproactivelycoordinatingthe support

of

the 1.650

communities

w

ithinthe

Bay